Republicans... which Republican would you prefer in the Presidency ?

[AHunter3]

Fair's fair.

As of yet, no Pubbies have tossed their hats into the ring to contend with George W in the Republican primaries. Or if they have they've received zero media attention.

If you had to pick someone other than the incumbent as your party's standard-bearer, who would you go with?


Me, I'm no Republican and frankly I think your party is up to its eyeballs in unpalatable political detritus, 2/3 of it social conservative and/or fundie religious in flavor, and the remaining third of it consisting of a failure to be economically conservative.

My pick would be Dennis Hastert. He ranks pretty low on the "ick" scale, although I'd like to hear him come out as pro-choice before I could vote for him; he's a good politician and thinks on his feet. And despite his position he doesn't come across as a Washington insider type. He would play well to middle America.

Your pick?

[Quint Essence]

one of the very few republicans that I still have any respect for is John McCain. I can not think of a single other republican currently in office that I have any faith at all in having any moral sense.

[elfkin477]

One of the Doles. I voted for Bob in 1996 and I'd have voted for Liddy too if she hadn't dropped out of the race in 2000. They seem pretty decent for people who ran for office.

[blowero]

one of the very few republicans that I still have any respect for is John McCain. I can not think of a single other republican currently in office that I have any faith at all in having any moral sense.
I know the OP asked for Republicans' opinions, and I'm not a Republican, but when I saw the thread title, McCain was the first person I thought of. He seems like a really cool guy; I wish he were a Democrat.;)

[Leaper]

I know the OP asked for Republicans' opinions, and I'm not a Republican, but when I saw the thread title, McCain was the first person I thought of. He seems like a really cool guy; I wish he were a Democrat.;)

I hate to hijack, but I once started a thread about this, and got no response, so I'm really wondering...

Has everyone forgotten and/or forgiven McCain's role in the whole S&L mess as one of the Keating Five? It certainly feels like it's no longer an issue with many people considering all the gushing about him, so I'm curious.

[blowero]

I hate to hijack, but I once started a thread about this, and got no response, so I'm really wondering...

Has everyone forgotten and/or forgiven McCain's role in the whole S&L mess as one of the Keating Five? It certainly feels like it's no longer an issue with many people considering all the gushing about him, so I'm curious.
Don't know. As for myself, it's simply ignorance. I don't know anything about that - do you have a link? I don't know much about McCain at all other than the fact that he comes across in interviews as very intelligent, thoughtful, and having a good sense of humor.

[Age Quod Agis]

Me, I'm no Republican and frankly I think your party is up to its eyeballs in unpalatable political detritus, 2/3 of it social conservative and/or fundie religious in flavor, and the remaining third of it consisting of a failure to be economically conservative.one of the very few republicans that I still have any respect for is John McCain. I can not think of a single other republican currently in office that I have any faith at all in having any moral sense.Amazing. A thread asking for Republicans to name their favorite Republicans, and the first two posts are Republican bashing. That's sure to attract Republican posters. :rolleyes: If you had to pick someone other than the incumbent as your party's standard-bearer, who would you go with?I don't know if I count as Republican, but as someone who's leaning toward voting for Bush, I"ll answer.

I'd love to see J.C. Watts running for President.

[fruitbat]

I don't properly count as either a Republican or Democrat, but I will give it a shot. I am waiting for the day when a truly moderate Republican has a chance of escaping the primaries. Among the possibilities I would be likely to vote for are:

Olympia Snowe
Christie Todd Whitman
Robert Erlich (who I would predict as a rising star of the party)

I would guess the front runner in '08 would be Frist though and he is, like most Republicans, too socially conservative for my tastes.

[Skammer]

Put me in the McCain camp too. I also kinda wish Lieberman were a Republican ("You mean he's not?")

Unfortunately it's hard to find a good candidate who's 1. Socially conservative and 2. Fiscally liberal, or at least not a puppet of major corporations and wealthy individuals.

[furt]

Since the odds are against a "Libertarians ..." thread, I'll throw out some "Pubs I like" besides the already named B. Dole and McCain:

Condi
Colin Powell
Mel Martinez
Jack Kemp
Zell Miller (Yes, I know)

[Michael Ellis]

John McCain. I supported him in 2000, and I'd do it again.

And Colin Powell.

[urban1a]

Lapsed Republican, here. My first thought, also, was John McCain. I either didn't know about the S&L thing, or had forgotten.

Bob

[peasea]

Another vote for Lieberman.
Ok, so I wouldn't vote for him no matter what party he's in. But then, I'm not a Republican or conservative Democrat. For those of you who are Republican, there is Blake Ashby (www.ashby2004.com), a self-made millionaire from St. Louis, who, last I knew, was registered in at least New Hampshire's primary. By now, he's probably in most, if not all the rest. Not that he has any sort of chance, but if you want to vote in the primary for someone other than W, there you go. For what it's worth, Ashby appears to be a very libertarian Republican.

[El Zagna]

Unfortunately it's hard to find a good candidate who's 1. Socially conservative and 2. Fiscally liberal...Actually I can't think of anyone who's like that? Just what branch of politics would that fall under?

[lel]

Here's a bit on McCain's role in the Keating S&L (http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_403.html) deal.

In a nutshell:

He was one of a group of senators who intervened on Keating's behalf to federal legislators when Keating was being investigated as his S&L was going under. At that point, it was discovered that Keating had been giving sizeable campaign contributions (and possibly other perks) to these senators, including McCain.

[Sam Stone]

The reason people like McCain and Miller get so much bipartisan support is simply because they aren't running for office, and therefore are free to talk up the stuff everyone likes and downplay the stuff they don't.

I really don't get the widespread support for McCain among Democrats, for instance. McCain is a conservative. He's pretty far over to the right in the Republican party. His objection to Bush is that Bush isn't conservative enough - he spends too much money. But McCain wants more money for the military, so guess where he would cut if he could? That's right - domestic spending.

McCain favors overturning Roe V Wade. He would prosecute abortion doctors. He wants to outlaw all abortion other than in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is at risk.

On the economy, McCain supports a balanced budget amendment AND spending caps on domestic spending. No more 4-8% growth in government while he's in office.

On social issues, McCain supports prayer in schools, defends the confederate flag, supports a flag burning amendment, and opposes affirmative action that results in quotas. He supports the patriot act, and even before 9/11 voted to loosen requirements for wiretaps. He has voted against same sex marriage.

McCain wants a stronger war on drugs, voted against increasing CAFE fuel standards, and he's a strong supporter of Bush's approach to the war on terror (the policy of pre-emption) and is a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

Remind me again why he's the darling of Democrats? Oh yeah - because he campaigned against Bush in the primaries.

[furt]

The reason people like McCain and Miller get so much bipartisan support is simply because they aren't running for office, and therefore are free to talk up the stuff everyone likes and downplay the stuff they don't.I submit that McCain was more popular in 2000, when he was running, than now.

I really don't get the widespread support for McCain among Democrats, for instance. McCain is a conservative.Because they are responding to him as an individual, not his positions, and he is seen (true or not), as honest and brave. Plus the whole Boomer-'Nam-guilt thing.

He likely doesn't appeal to the demi-Greens on the Mad How wing of the party; but they aren't all Dems.

[HomerIU]

Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) would be the perfect man for President right now. He's probably the most knowledgeable person in the Senate on foreign relations and I think he would be able to reverse much of the damage done by Bush to the United State's international image. He has spoken out against the president on a number of issues in Iraq, mainly his lack of a post-war plan. He's well respected, has few no no skeletons in his closet to be embarassed of and is much more qualified for the job than Bush.

Won't happen, but he'd be the best person for the job right now, Republican or Democrat.

[John Mace]

Speaking as another libertarian-leaning type who votes more Pub than Dem, the Republicans (with caveats) I've like the most are:

Kemp (let's call his support of Dole a "youthful indescretion")
Kasich (until he started sub'ing for O'Reilly)
Powell (although he's much more of a pol than one might think)
Army and Graham (somehow I associate these guys with each other)
Bush (Jeb)

Kemp particularly stands out because he holds to his principles, but will acknowledge mistakes if he finds out something doesn't work. He's a straight shooter, with a can-do attitude who does not seem to play silly political games.

I've always like Jeb much more than GW (been following both for awhile). He seems much more thoughtful, intelligent, and principled.

On an intellectual level, I do like Gingrich a lot, but he's just too nasty a person to be president. Too much of a go-for-the-jugular type guy.

[Rashak Mani]

Wow... many posts say clearly that Bush isn't their first choice... but their only choice since the Democratic candidates stink. (Which they mostly do).

Who actually SUPPORTS Bush vs PREFERS Bush ?

[John Mace]

Wow... many posts say clearly that Bush isn't their first choice... but their only choice since the Democratic candidates stink. (Which they mostly do).

Maybe because the OP explicitly asks who you would support "other than the incumbent." Some people do acually follow directions. :)

But in my case, I would favor any of the guys I mentioned over GW Bush.

[HomerIU]

I really would vote for someone other than Bush, despite my Republican leanings, if a better choice were available. I spent a lot of time last night looking over the 3rd party candidates and quickly learned WHY they are all members of a 3rd party : they all have hugely unrealistic ideas that would never in a million years pass through Congress or work in the real world. I was disappointed. If I could find a viable 3rd party candidate to vote for, I'd do it even if they had no chance of winning, mainly to send the message that I find it unacceptable for the Republicans, or any party. to rely almost solely on name recognition and not on qualifications in nominating a candidate. (This would also apply to Hillary in 2008 if she "chooses" to run then. She may be more qualified than GWB, but I think if she is chosen it will be largely because of her last name.)

[GoHeels]

How 'bout Rudy Guiliani?

Proven leader in a crisis.

Proven record of fiscal responsibility.

Socially moderate/liberal.

Hard-nosed on defense.

Tough on crime.

I think if you can run a city as complex and tough as NYC as well as he did, you have the capability to handle the job of president of the US.

[cckerberos]

I consider myself a libertarian Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000 and will probably do the same in 2004, although my votes won't be any significance (given that I'm from Massachusetts).

I'd prefer to see

Condi
Colin Powell
Bob/Elizabeth Dole

as a candidate, although really, anyone who isn't in the pocket of the religious right would be great.

[blowero]

I really don't get the widespread support for McCain among Democrats, for instance. McCain is a conservative. He's pretty far over to the right in the Republican party. His objection to Bush is that Bush isn't conservative enough - he spends too much money. But McCain wants more money for the military, so guess where he would cut if he could? That's right - domestic spending.

McCain favors overturning Roe V Wade. He would prosecute abortion doctors. He wants to outlaw all abortion other than in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is at risk.

On the economy, McCain supports a balanced budget amendment AND spending caps on domestic spending. No more 4-8% growth in government while he's in office.

On social issues, McCain supports prayer in schools, defends the confederate flag, supports a flag burning amendment, and opposes affirmative action that results in quotas. He supports the patriot act, and even before 9/11 voted to loosen requirements for wiretaps. He has voted against same sex marriage.

McCain wants a stronger war on drugs, voted against increasing CAFE fuel standards, and he's a strong supporter of Bush's approach to the war on terror (the policy of pre-emption) and is a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

In other words, he's a Republican. With the exception of the confederate flag thing, that's all part of the Republican platform. Doesn't sound like he's on the fringe of the party at all. Sounds like dead-center to me.

Remind me again why he's the darling of Democrats? Oh yeah - because he campaigned against Bush in the primaries.
Hmmm...didn't know he was the darling of Democrats. I just said I thought he sounded intelligent; I certainly wouldn't vote for him. I'm just ideologically too far apart from the Republican party; it would take a lot more than just opposing Bush to make me vote for one.

[SPOOFE]

as a candidate, although really, anyone who isn't in the pocket of the religious right would be great.
Y'know, that would be my preference too, really. I dig several people - NOT including our president - for their fiscal conservativity. Other pols I dig for their levelheaded social liberalism (those that don't go all PC).

[edwino]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Arlen Spector. He seems to be a standard fallback for the moderate Republicans around.

As a Democrat, I would be tempted to vote for someone like Spector or Lugar or Colin Powell. McCain seems like a quality, honest individual as of late but as Sam Stone has pointed out, he is too conservative for me. They seem knowledgeable and able to lead, which are qualities I believe are lacking in Bush.

[RTFirefly]

I really don't get the widespread support for McCain among Democrats, for instance. McCain is a conservative. He's pretty far over to the right in the Republican party. His objection to Bush is that Bush isn't conservative enough - he spends too much money. But McCain wants more money for the military, so guess where he would cut if he could? That's right - domestic spending.

McCain favors overturning Roe V Wade. He would prosecute abortion doctors. He wants to outlaw all abortion other than in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is at risk.

On the economy, McCain supports a balanced budget amendment AND spending caps on domestic spending. No more 4-8% growth in government while he's in office.

On social issues, McCain supports prayer in schools, defends the confederate flag, supports a flag burning amendment, and opposes affirmative action that results in quotas. He supports the patriot act, and even before 9/11 voted to loosen requirements for wiretaps. He has voted against same sex marriage.

McCain wants a stronger war on drugs, voted against increasing CAFE fuel standards, and he's a strong supporter of Bush's approach to the war on terror (the policy of pre-emption) and is a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

Remind me again why he's the darling of Democrats? Oh yeah - because he campaigned against Bush in the primaries.Here's the Washington Monthly on McCain (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.green.html): As a war hero who's hawkish on foreign policy, he more than matches Bush on the military front. As a reform-minded foe of corporate welfare, Big Tobacco, and the Republican right, he is peerless. McCain is Bush's most vociferous critic, voted against the president's tax cut, forced his hand on campaign finance reform, and federalized airport security in the face of White House opposition. He has co-sponsored numerous bills with Democrats--many of them in the presidential-aspirant class--requiring background checks at gun shows (Lieberman), a patients' bill of rights (Edwards), better fuel-efficiency standards in cars and SUVs (Kerry), and expanded national service programs (Bayh). He is even drafting a bill with Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gasses and mitigate global warming. McCain couldn't fairly be described as an environmentalist, but he has fought to keep corporate polluters in check and endorsed higher CAFE standards for cars and SUVs--putting him to the left of Gore, who as vice president, endorsed Clinton's reneging on a campaign promise to raise CAFE standards. His position on abortion doesn't endear him to women's groups, but his progressive approach to tobacco, gun control, and a patients' bill of rights appeals to women generally. Perhaps more promising is that McCain's presidential run required him to delve into policy areas he'd previously ignored, such as healthcare, education, and the environment. More often than not, this consideration led him to adopt positions on the political center or center-left. "On the campaign trail and in the Senate, McCain was one of the few Republicans to make a forceful, centrist case for saving social security and cutting taxes to help the middle class, not just the wealthy," says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

Since the campaign, McCain has adopted a similarly moderate-left stance on the patients' bill of rights. He is also as good as any mainstream Democrat on issues like gun control and fighting tobacco, and better than most at battling corporate excess, which would even appeal to liberals and Naderites.
McCain's biggest handicap is that he is, at least nominally, pro-life. It is not a subject on which he's outspoken or particularly passionate. ("Do people still think that?" quips a McCain adviser.) And if you want something more current, you might read McCain's comments about the Omnibus Budget Bill (http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1220) and read what he has to say about its media ownership and gun law provisions. Since I've long been familiar with McCain's deep opposition to corporate misuse of the media, I'll go with the latter: This rider has three major provisions – all of them unnecessary for gun owners and none of them helpful for law enforcement. First, it requires that background check approval records be destroyed within 24 hours instead of the current policy of 90 days. Proponents argue that keeping these records for 90 days constitutes a national firearm registry.

I want to be very clear that I oppose federal registration of firearms. I also want to be equally clear that our current policy of keeping these records for 90 days does not constitute in any way, shape, or form a national registry. It’s a phony issue.

The 90 days retention allows the NICS system to correct mistakes that occur when they accidentally approve someone who should have been denied a gun in the first place. This happens about 500 times a year, according to GAO. Nearly all of these false approvals are because of missing domestic violence records. So, as far as I can tell, this provision benefits no one except those who should have been denied a firearm, but were not.

The second provision prevents ATF from conducting an inventory audit of licensed gun stores. This means that ATF auditors will have no way of knowing if a gun store is missing firearms – a sure sign that they are selling guns illegally and without the proper background checks.

Mr. President, in Tacoma, Washington, ATF auditors discovered 233 firearms missing from Bull’s Eye Shooters Supply store. One of those weapons was used by the accused DC-area snipers. Why are we putting special language in a must-pass federal spending bill to protect a store like Bull’s Eye? Consider the potential consequences.

And a third provision prohibits the public release of crime gun trace information. This information is not top secret data that jeopardizes our national security, or hinders law enforcement. We cannot have a government that operates in secret and refuses to release information that shows where criminals have obtained a gun.

This provision has no support from the law enforcement community, and was even opposed by Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Wolf. Yet, here it is today, included in this terrible bill. Mr. President, this language is an embarrassment to law abiding gun owners and is a slap in the face to law enforcement.
Yeah, I like him. I would have loved to see him run for President this year as a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent.

I see that my cite contradicts Sam's assertion about CAFE standards. My cite suggests McCain's stance on abortion is much more pro forma than Sam's assertion implies. I'd like to see a post-2000 cite on McCain's support of school prayer, given that he pretty much burned his bridges with the Christian Right in the Virginia primary that year. And hardly any Democrat supports affirmative action that results in quotas, so McCain's opposition to same is no problem with the Dems.

[RTFirefly]

Having gone to McCain's Web site (http://mccain.senate.gov), you'll discover if you click on the "Issues" button that 26 different issues are listed there. Both abortion and school prayer are absent from the list, which indicates their lack of importance to McCain. Does he even have a current stance on abortion? A cite is welcomed.

Here's McCain on global warming (http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1171): “We’ve lost a battle today, but we'll win over time because climate change is real. And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time. You can only win by marshaling public opinion,” McCain said.

“Today we scored an important moral victory for protecting our environment and combating global warming.” Lieberman said. “President Bush has denied, delayed and derailed any action on global warming. But today’s vote shows that the political climate is changing on climate change, and the Congress and the American people are warming up to action on global warming. Global warming is now - and must remain - on the front burner of the national environmental agenda.”

[Sam Stone]

The bulk of my source material for that post came from On The Issues (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm), which is a great resource for candidate positions.

Here's the John McCain (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm) page.

Don't get me wrong - I like John McCain. Always have. I just don't get his appeal among people who consider themselves part of the left.

[Mr. Moto]

I did a lot of volunteer work for Rick Santorum back when he was a Congressman. I still believe he's one of the most decent and honorable men I've ever met.

[Hammer]

Love to see a Powell/Rice or Rice/Powell ticket in 08.

I "think" they are closer to me on social issues than GW but it's hard to know since they don't really have a voting record and haven't run for office yet.

Other possibles

Elizabeth Dole
J. C. Watt.
Jeb Bush


Rumsfeld - Just to see him fuck with the press on a daily basis.

[SnoopyFan]

Condi or Liddy, provided they're pro-life. If not, then *shrug*

[Mr2001]

I did a lot of volunteer work for Rick Santorum back when he was a Congressman. I still believe he's one of the most decent and honorable men I've ever met.
Well, if Savage Love is to be believed, Mr. Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com) has said that no one has a right to private, consensual sex, and that states should be able to outlaw birth control.

[BwanaBob]

How 'bout Rudy Guiliani?

Proven leader in a crisis.

Proven record of fiscal responsibility.

Socially moderate/liberal.

Hard-nosed on defense.

Tough on crime.

I think if you can run a city as complex and tough as NYC as well as he did, you have the capability to handle the job of president of the US.


I second Rudy.....and mark my words, we haven't seen the last of him.

[Mr. Moto]

Well, if Savage Love is to be believed, Mr. Santorum has said that no one has a right to private, consensual sex, and that states should be able to outlaw birth control.

This would be the same Dan Savage that licked doorknobs to intentionally spread the flu. :rolleyes:

What Santorum was attacking was the finding of a constitutional right to these things in a document that plainly never mentions them.

[jayjay]

I did a lot of volunteer work for Rick Santorum back when he was a Congressman. I still believe he's one of the most decent and honorable men I've ever met.

Ah, yes. Santorum is so decent and honorable, as long as you're not one of those horrible, evil homosexuals (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays/).

[Loopydude]

Colin Powell would have been my first choice hands-down, but he's blown it with the whole Iraq thing. Really blown it.

McCain...eh, he does the populist thing well, but I don't feel like I can figure him out. His record is kinda schizo. I think he's more the consumate politician than he wants to appear....and I don't want another dyed-in-the-wool pol unless he's willing to come clean about it.

Liddy Dole: I like her...she can be pro-life if she wants, so long as she agrees to disagree with the pro-choice crowd. A straight-shooter and apparrently an honest broker. I'd take her over another senator who would like to follow her husband's presidential aspirations, quite frankly...

Bush...ach! The affable lug thing took about a month to wear off, and then the slowly growing fear set in. I don't hate the guy; I'm terrified of him. Actually, I'm more frightened of some of his cabinet and the VP, who we all know basically run the show. Whoever the GOP might put up as an alternative, I'd at least be more encouraged if they showed some clear semblance of intellectual control. Beyond "my way or the highway," (or, more likely, Dick, Rummy and Condi's way or the highway) I don't know what the hell Bush is about. He seems to be a shipmate unwittingly blown in the wind, a passenger who thinks he's the navigator. A meaner version of Reagan. I'd take even Arlen Specter over that any day of the week and thrice on Sundays.

Geez, have my standards sunk.

[SnoopyFan]

I can't believe I forgot about Rick Santorum!

Definitely Rick, hands down.